Episode 4 Sunday Morning Live

Episode 4

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Episode 4. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The Church of England will today consider whether it should be more


As some schools consider gender neutral uniforms too,


we discuss is there enough understanding of


Scotland is introducing a law to make it easier for doctors to use


We ask should organ donation be compulsory?


We meet the Yorkshire farmer who has had eight organs replaced.


I am well aware of the fact that when we were told the organs had


been found and I was a match, that there was a family somewhere going


through absolute grief and pain. They had just lost their loved one.


Also on the programme, television legend Jerry Springer,


who speculates about running for President against Donald Trump.


If I ran against Donald Trump in America, there really would be a


wall built because you would have to build a wall to keep Americans from


trying to get out. All that coming up and Samanthi


Flanagan is here ready We want you to get in touch


with your views on our You can contact us by


Facebook and Twitter. Don't forget to use


the hashtag #bbcsml. Or text SML followed


by your message to 60011. Texts are charged at your


standard message rate. Or email us at


[email protected] However you choose to get in touch,


please don't forget to include your name so I can get you involved


in our discussions. Let's start with an item that


might get you and our guests here talking -


transgender rights. Later today, the Church of England's


ruling body, the General Synod, will discuss introducing a special


religious ceremony to welcome in the new identity of those


who are transgender. The move comes as transgender rights


have become increasingly high profile, with some schools


introducing gender neutral And, in a world first,


a Canadian parent is currently battling to have "gender


unspecified" written on their new So is there enough understanding


of transgender issues? Joining us now are Juno Dawson,


an author and journalist, Mike Davidson is the CEO


of Core Issues Trust, Radhika Sanghani is a journalist


and Dr Joanna Williams The Church is steeped in tradition


and change comes slowly. Are we asking too much for the


church to change like this? I don't think so. You have got to remember


that being transgender and having faith are not mutually exclusive and


if you are religious there should nowhere more welcoming than your


place of worship, whether it is a church, mosque or synagogue. I am


not especially religious but I like to think if I were Christian there


would still be a home for me in the church. The church is trying to find


ways of accepting transgender people. I think everybody needs to


be welcome in the church of Christ but I worry. Yesterday, the General


Synod passed a motion where it banned conversion therapy. People


who want to go the other way, who don't want to be gay, they are not


allowed to be recognised and they can't have helped. What I would call


for is a real understanding before we make such a momentous change, as


is about to happen. If there is a momentous change, and the General


Synod are just discussing it, if they do change, would you be happy


with that? I would be concerned that what we are doing is to encourage


people to align their belief system and their body. In other words, they


will encourage their body to follow what they believe in their mind.


Christians are about renewing their mind and following the mind of


Christ, very often. I think what that means is very often we have a


belief system and if our bodies are going in the other direction, then


what we are encouraged to do is to make sure that we make our bodies


are obedient to the mind of Christ. That is a very different approach.


Lots of movement over here. Nodding or shaking your head? What is


interesting is how this tells us something about the importance of


individual feelings, which apparently can override biology, and


now the will of God as well. I am not an especially religious person


but I think if you are religious, then a belief in God would be


fundamental to how you perceive your own identity. It seems now we are


saying to people, however you feel, if you don't feel like a man or


woman, God will recognise that. Religion is irrelevant, biology is


irrelevant, be whoever you want to be. Much of the debate goes around


children's identity. What do you feel about that when you are giving


the child the option to choose? I think that is very problematic and


it can cause psychological issues with a child to say to children as


young as three or five, how do you feel about your gender? Do you feel


like a boy or girl? That can confuse children. Is it problematic? I


completely disagree. That is suggesting that being transgender is


something people choose, that it is a trend, and we know that is just


not true. RNA the rest of us transgender? Just me Akpa Akpro as


the person -- are any of the rest of us transgender? Just me! When I was


only four I knew it was crazy that people were telling me I was a boy


and this was the 80s. There was no pressure from teachers and schools


or parents. I knew 100% with every inch of my being not only did I want


to be a girl but all being well I was. Juno was three. Other children


are under five. What is your view? You were smirking. I want to respect


that experience. You haven't had that experience. I disagree. As a


young man, I felt I had attractions to the same sex but there was


something in my mind that told me I was not comfortable with it. I


didn't buy into the notion that it was just systemic, phobia. --


systemic homophobia. Just that the country were telling me they were


wrong. They were my own values that made me feel that I wanted to get


married, have children, and I wanted to live as a heterosexual man. I


know people have different opinions, but the point here is the


possibility is trans-will be recognised fully in the church and


they will be encouraged but people who want to go in the direction I


went and are being stopped from doing that. The reason is because it


is claimed that orientation is in all cases unchangeable. What do you


mean that people like you are being stopped? My clients, I work with


individuals, who for whatever reason want to come out of homosexual


practices. And what do you do? I work with them to support their


goals. Just as Josie has a goal here. The goal to leave homosexual


practices and live in a different way. It's like not being true to


himself and his clients? I was not warned that there was going to be a


gay conversion therapist on this show and I would not have agreed to


come on because I am feeling ambushed. We don't want to get too


much into that debate because it is not the issue here. It Mike being


true to himself? That is for him to decide. I have not lived his


experience. This is why it is very difficult. Very often I get wheeled


out as the trans person to give my lived experience. That's week we had


the Stonewall schools report and I am a role model, and it says eight


out of ten transgender people and not just thought about killing


themselves but has tried to kill themselves. Undoubtedly we have had


a huge rise in the visibility of transgender people. And the fact


that I am on this show, people are watching this. But we have also not


had a rise in understanding. We had man gives birth on the front page of


The Sun and also a uterus for men. The tone of the conversation around


transgender people, we have got to move it on. It is not a freak show,


not a circus. Are we getting the tone wrong? Children are incredibly


unhappy. Attempting to take their lives. This is relativistic. We are


throwing everything up in the air and saying you can't be whoever you


want to be and we have privileged the idea of being true to yourself


about biological reality. The fact is that men do not get pregnant. If


you have the biological components necessary to get pregnant and give


birth, you are biologically female. You are woman. We send out very


confusing messages to young children who might be going through a phase.


To children and adults, but especially children. Be what you


want, that is your right, but when we start telling children that men


can get pregnant and have babies... So how do you respond when Juno says


that at three years old... I have young children and I know that young


children who are three years old had all kinds of ideas about their


gender and their role in the world and their individual identity. Lots


of them do grow up and don't carry on thinking and feeling and acting


as they did when they were three. I think it is really important that we


allow children the freedom to grow and develop and recognise that.


Sometimes a phase is just a phase. I think there is so much


scaremongering here. People the thought of a small child in nursery


hearing about trans, what will happen? This disregards the fact


that there are medical experts out there. If a child feels like they


are trans and they are going to go down that path, there are medical


experts along the way. I just doubt that a three-year-old would wake up


one day and feel like they are trans. You mention those headlines


and you criticise them. Turn it on its head. Transgender activists are


preventing education, the transgender police. The powerful


trans lobby, one of my favourite myths, that we have power in


society. Just coming here on the underground couple was giggling at


me. There is no power. Going back to what was said about trans children,


the greatest myth and possibly one of the most damaging, is that three


and four -year-olds are being wheeled into surgery. It just


doesn't happen. I used to be a primary school teacher and there was


a young person in the class above me, six and seven. This was a family


in crisis. A child had been born biologically male and their family


was really struggling. They were referred to the Tavistock in London,


the gender clinic, and nothing happened to that child in terms of


medical intervention but the family received a much-needed support. As


it happens, that child did go on to make steps towards a medical


transition later on. Some don't. As children it is much more about


having that conversation, supporting them, supporting their family. That


is not medically. It is about well-being. We have got some strong


comments coming in. Lee says that transgender issues are on our face


constantly and we are sick of it. It has gone beyond understanding. But


this person says it is about compassion, empathy and


understanding, so why do trans people feel they need special


treatment? Jenna says the church is doing a good thing trying to


understand the world around them. Anything that can spread acceptance


and love is good. And Sarah said more should be done to educate


children at school about trans issues that they can understand and


learn about humanism. We have put that comments to our


panel. It is too much and it is shoved in our face? That couldn't be


further from the truth. We are hearing more about trans issues,


which is amazing, but we have not reached that level of understanding


at all. The Stonewall report that was mentioned, it is everything.


Teenagers are still being bullied, they are self harming, trying to


kill themselves and it is horrific. There is not this level of


understanding. But we know that in this country parents are not free to


be involved in working through the issues with their children. Social


services are stepping in and removing children from families. If


society too quick to act to help people to change? I think we are


getting there, slowly. I don't think they are too quick at all. I don't


think anybody who has gone through this process, as Juno says, I don't


think so. My heart goes out to the child that you are describing but


what we have in schools at the moment goes way beyond supporting


individuals. If you look at render neutral school uniforms, I have no


problem with children wearing whatever they want. But when you


present it in the school setting as a special gender neutral uniform


because people can be gender non-binary, I think that goes way


beyond supporting individuals and saying you can wear what you like.


It is opening up the idea that gender is something that you can


choose. I will give the final word to Juno. I worked in schools for a


long time. I started to see things filtering through when I was still


at the coal face, as it were. It is more about schools being prepared. I


am an author now and I travel around schools with my teen fiction all the


time. It is unheard of now that there wouldn't be one trans and


non-binary teenager in every school that I go into. Usually the


librarian introduces them to me and they are pleased to meet me and say


I am their role model. That is so lovely. This conversation is


reminiscent of something. I was at school in the 80s and 90s, educated


under Thatcher's section 20 eight. Think of the children! Think of the


children! That is what it is reminiscent of. The LGB community


had made leaps forward after 1967. What have we got to worry about? The


children, and they introduced that measure, and it feels like 20 years


on that is where we are right with trans awareness in schools. There is


this slight hysteria. Think of the children, but actually the children


are fine. Not a lot of agreement but a really


interesting debate. Now let's meet a man who has


written his own chapter in television history -


Jerry Springer. His show, a mixture of confrontation


and confession played out in front of a raucous studio audience,


has been panned and praised. But it is still running


after 25 years. Jerry has also been


a news presenter, actor, musician and politician,


most notably as Democratic Jerry! Jerry!


I was told I was going to be interviewed you, Jerry Springer, and


all I wanted to do was say Jerry! Jerry! Does that happen to you?


Constantly. 25 years and counting of your show, why does it have this


continued appeal? It is so outrageous, it is a circus. It is an


escape for an hour of what people do our lives. The first show would


probably be crazy. It kind of becomes part of pop culture. You can


say I am having a Jerry Springer moment and everyone knows what you


are talking about. In any way, do you think the set of could be seen


as exploitative? That is not right, everything is voluntary. You have


too want to be on and you get to talk about whatever you want to talk


about. Now, because these people don't have a lot of money we say,


oh, they are trash. But you have wealthy people, famous people,


good-looking people doing the exact same things and they write books and


they appear on the late-night shows, talk about the latest person they


slept with, drugs, whatever, and we cheer them. It is a double standard.


Do you still enjoy doing it? About the only reason I do it is because


it is fun. If we went out to dinner one evening and I would say, how was


your day? You would tell me how your day was and you would say, how was


yours? I would say, well, I got this guy who married his horse. Who is


going to have a better story? And that happens, you featured a guy who


married his horse. Yes. You have a soft spot for the UK, you were


born... I was born here, I am an Anglophile. You were born in a tube


station during the war. I was told at Highgate. I had to tell you, I


don't remember. More personally about you, on the BBC you Today


Programme, Who Do You Think You Are,, which looked at your history.


-- on the BBC you did a problem. Your family roots, some terrible


stories in certain circumstances? It blew me away.


My sister and I grew up new wing that we had lost family, they were


killed in Nazi Germany before we were born.


Where was she sent? Resettled is a euphemism for being deported to the


extermination camp. When I look back, my parents


sheltered us. We did not notice those scars. When my dad got near


80, that is the first time I noticed, there is this story, my mum


was scared to death of him driving. She always wanted him to sell the


car. One day I said, mum coming you get so nervous, you would do is such


a favour if you got rid of it. And he says... He said, well, I'll keep


the car until I80, because you never know when you have to getaway. I am


going, oh, my. It stuns me, even until this day. He was standing


there and he was dead serious. He was not saying it is something


dramatic. We had been living in America for... This was the mid-80s,


so for 35 years already. And I went, how often... ? How often must see


have thought? Did he think about that every night? Was he always


afraid every time the telephone rang or banging on the front door?


Having those little insights towards the end of your father's life into


what was perhaps going through the... His mind, did it change how


you viewed people? My whole thing about this whole issue of


immigration and everything like that, boy, what these poor people


must be going through. These people are trying to get away. They are


families, children, they want to live. Why would we ever not want to


do everything we can to help them? Did you have faith growing up? You


are from Jewish parents? I go to temple, belong to the temple,


support it. I am very Jewish. People sometimes lose some face when they


learn more about those awful stories. We are not sure perhaps how


God operates or whatever, and I don't pretend to know. Here is what


I know. 99% of what we are is just a gift. Under any moral, whatever your


religion, you say thank you. And the way you say thank you is by giving


something back, by doing something for others, treating them well. To


realise that could have been me. So of course I will try to help a


refugee, I will not make fun of somebody because they are not as


smart as me, let's say, or whatever. You sound like you have a good


perspective from your upbringing. You were elected mayor of Cincinnati


in your early 30s, that was your proudest moment? It is the best job


I had. Do you see yourself re-entering politics? I am


announcing my candidacy for Prime Minister of Great Britain. I think


we can do better. At the moment anything can happen, now we have a


reality TV star in the White House. I am so sorry, I hope I am not


responsible for that. We're not talking President Springer? I was


born in England. Even if I could run for president, if I ran against


Trump in America there really would be a wall built, you would have to


to keep Americans from trying to get out. Trump/ Springer, I am out of


here! He would like that, the ratings would be good. Can you


imagine that debate? For my Jerry Springer moment, I feel like I


should throw a chair at you or something, this has been very calm.


Don't go Jerry Springer on me! I won't. Thank you so much, I have


really enjoyed talking to you. And I'm glad Emma didn't


throw that chair at him! Still to come on


Sunday Morning Live: The survivor of the 7/7 London


bombings working with Muslim mothers to stop their children turning


to terrorism. Mothers are the change-makers, they


protect their children, they are able to nurture and prevent them


from becoming radicalised. The Scottish Government has


announced plans to bring in a new system of encouraging


people to donate organs. It will be based on the idea


of presumed consent. Patients are assumed to agree


to donate potentially life-saving organs after death,


unless their families A similar system was introduced


in Wales in 2015 but in the rest of the UK you have to opt in,


with a donor card, for instance. We'll discuss the issues


involved in a moment. First let's meet Adam Alderson,


a Yorkshire farmer who owes his As far as I knew I was a fit and


healthy young man with the rest of my life to look forward to with my


partner, Laura. In 2013I was diagnosed with a rare form of


cancer. I had never heard of it at the time. It took me a few years to


be able to say the word. At the time I was told it was widespread. Once


they opened me up, they realised the disease was much further advanced


and nothing more could be done, really. I was home, palliative care


was not really a future to look forward to. I did not know how long.


I was essentially dying with not a lot of life to live and I was


really, really poorly. The pain was just ridiculous. I could not eat any


more through my mouth, it was through a tube to my stomach. It was


a bleak existence. I didn't give up. I am a


Yorkshireman. I took the attitude of this will not be to me. The only


option to remove that disease meant having an organ transplant. At that


time there were only three of these operations done, so the risks were


quite high, but what was the alternative? I was going to die


anyway. I wanted to go through with it. The operation took 17 hours and


involves removing most of my abdominal organs, including my


stomach, small bowel, large bowel, pancreas, spleen, gall bladder and


abdominal wall. Also my liver was shaved quite hard as well. Then I


was transplanted with new organs from a donor. And then I was given


the news when I came around, by my wife, that it had been 100% success.


I did not believe it at first, Laura had to get the surgeon that did the


operation to come and confirm that I was OK. OK with the new organs and a


new life. Not only do I feel really well, I run now, I did the three


peaks a few weeks ago in less than ten hours, which is a fine


achievement. I got married five weeks ago. We are about to embark on


the adventure of a lifetime. I came up with this idea of doing a 10,000


to 15,000 mile trek through Europe into Asia, ending up in a land that


tall, Mongolia. You could call it a honeymoon, it is the first holiday


since the wedding. I am well and have a life to look forward to. I am


aware of the fact that when we were told the organs had been found and I


was a match, that there was a family somewhere going through absolute


grief and pain. They had just lost their loved one. Since the operation


I have written to the donor, which was tough, I did not know where to


start to thank them for that decision in those hours of grief and


need. My opinion on the opt out is that I think if you are willing to


receive organs to save your life, then let's be willing to donate them


to save someone else's. Adam Alderson, with a lot


to thank organ donors for. So should organ


donation be compulsory? Joining me now are Charles Michael


Duke, a vlogger and campaigner, Rabbi Jeremy Lawrence is senior


rabbi at Finchley United Synagogue, Gurch Randhawa is a professor


in diversity and public health and Sally Bee is


a health campaigner. Charles, starting with you, Tevez


your current situation? Currently I am waiting for a double lung


transplant, which I have been for over two years now. It is because of


something called cystic fibrosis, which I was diagnosed with at birth.


I carried on living with that condition, and still do, up until


about 18 when I was approached, really, with the fact that my health


had got to a point where my lungs were no longer fit for purpose and I


needed new ones. How did you feel when you got bad news? Very hard to


take up the time, I was adamant I did not need one and I would be


fine. I did not feel it was something I needed. I am an actor, I


was on stage doing a show and my lung collapsed. I finished the show.


I did not know my lung collapsed at the time. Just a lot of pain?


Adrenaline got me through it, I felt weird, I went to hospital the next


day, asking for antibiotics to get to the rest of the shows and they


said, Charles, your loan has collapsed. This was on Christmas Eve


to add to the sob story! So I went into hospital and it was the turning


point for me to make me realise that it was something that I needed if I


wanted to one, carry on living and two, have a life rather than just


exist. That was over two years ago. Gurch, so many people need Ocon logo


and orders, including Charles. -- organ donors. We should change the


rules so it is opt out throughout the whole country? We have seen from


Adam's story the huge life transforming achievement that


transplantation can have. Three people a day are sadly dying waiting


for a transplant and we need to look at the evidence, which shows that


most people who refuse organ donation refuse because they say is


a family we never discussed organ donation. The key challenge for us


as a society is how do we ensure that conversations around organ


donation take place. At the moment in the UK family consent rates are


about 60%, if we could get those up to about 80% we would radically


reduce the number of people waiting for a transplant. Slobodan opt out


system work better? It would be a big change, look at Wales? -- so


would an opt out system work better? There has not been an increase in


family consent rates in Wales. They say in Wales, the Government, there


are more oak -- organ donors and more people are being saved, if you


listen to the Government. The number of transplants have increased. In


the UK we introduced lots of clinical training, and increased


number of trained surgeons had transplantation. Over 2008 and 2013


B had a 50% increase in organ donations in the whole UK, which is


possible, but the key thing is how do we drive up family consent rates?


It does not change if you have opting in or opting out, we have to


solved this by having schools, colleges, places of worship,


business sector, everybody talking about organ donation. Sally, nothing


will change if we have opt in or opt out?


I don't believe in opting out. I think it has got to be a


conversation. Speaking as a potential recipient or donor in the


future, it seems to me that if the whole of society thinks we are on


the list anyway, it takes women need to have the conversation. It doesn't


matter if anybody is on the list if their next of kin withdraws the


consent, the consent is gone. Doesn't having an opt out system


encouraged the conversation? No, I think it has the opposite effect. It


makes people sit back on their laurels and think it is a foregone


conclusion that actually it isn't. You have got to have the


conversation and everything we can possibly do to make sure that more


people have a conversation with their families to understand. I have


sat down with my family. I have three children and two have agreed.


My 13-year-old has said she doesn't believe in it and if anything


happens to you, I don't want you to be cut up and I don't want anything


happening. This is an ongoing conversation I need to have with her


as time goes on to make sure she understands fully. Obviously working


in this arena, but if I wasn't, if the government just decided


everybody was on the organ donor list, I don't think I would have


that conversation with my family, which is the most important part of


this. Sally says that she is a potential donor and receiver and you


are receiver. Do you agree with that? I completely agree with the


fact that the conversation, no matter what system is in place, is


by far one of the most important things. Would you be in favour of


opt out? Personally, I am in favour of opt out. There is evidence to


support the fact that it does increase the pool of potential


donors, which increases the pool of organs being donated and it


increases my chance of receiving a transplant. I am all in favour of an


opt out. But it is a soft opt out meaning the family can withdraw


consent, and at the moment we are in a soft opt in which means the family


can withdraw consent. While I disagree with your views on whether


or not opt out is right, I completely agree that the


conversation and dialogue should happen. Which is why we are having


this discussion on Sunday morning and that is brilliant and


encouraging people to talk about it with their families. It is nice to


have a panel that agrees on one thing, if not the same way. Why


shouldn't everybody have to donate their organs? From a religious


perspective, our bodies and our lives are not entirely our own. When


we die, we take nothing with us. That we have no property and once we


are dead, it is not our body to dispose of, but even more it is not


the state to make that decision for us. I am not a state person. I think


that people should be donors and they should choose to be donors. I


had the discussion with my family when I became convinced of that. My


confidence in being a donor should the need arise is not because I


carry a donor card saying that according to religious practice,


Jewish religious practice, I am happy to be a donor and it is not


because I'm listed on any registry, but it is because I know that my


wife and my children although that is what I want. I am not going to be


the person making that choice. I am not going to be the person concerned


about my body after the event. I am not going to be the person worrying


in hospital about whether or not my heart or lungs or kidney or any


other organ are going to be of use to people. My family are the people


who will be worried about that, and they know it is what I want. They


know they can go to their rabbi, not me under the circumstances, that


they can go to their rabbi, who knows what is the point of death


according to Jewish law and how to affect my wishes. What have you got


for us? I'm joined now by Alex Rosenberg,


an intensive care consultant at Brompton and Harefield Hospital


in South East London. Good morning. When somebody dies,


what is the process you need to go through to get permission for their


organs to be donated? The first and really vital step of the process is


that the patient has got to have received all of the treatment that


they should for their condition. And it be decided by the team, in


conjunction with the patient's family, that unfortunately they will


not survive the illness, and at that stage we reach a point where we can


start to consider organ donation. It has got to be at the end of that


patient's active management. There are some concerns that people think


if they are on the donor list then they might not be getting the full


treatment because their organs are valuable. Is that a legitimate


concern? Absolutely not. One of the things we have got to really convey


to anyone watching this, anyone we speak to about this, being on the


organ donation list has no affect on the treatment you receive. The two


things are entirely separate. Once you get to the end of your


treatment, at that stage, we consider whether or not someone is


possible to be an organ donor. There are two routes by which they can


become one. One of which is that two highly specialised doctors with a


great deal of training can do lots of examinations and prove that the


patient's brain has no function whatsoever, in which case we can


declare the patient brain dead, and they are in a state where they can


go to the operating theatre and the organs can be retrieved. We have


heard a lot about people's families making this decision at an emotional


time and the panel have taught difficult that conversation is. Is.


Is there too much responsibility on the family to make that decision at


the moment? That is very difficult. The onus of responsibility should be


on the individual. If you believe that you want to be an organ donor


which I personally do and I believe other people should as well, then


they should convey those views to their family. Then the


responsibility is not on the family. They are just giving their


relative's wishes after they are not able to any more. We have asked


whether organ donation should be compulsory and Tadd says it is anti


freedom because my body belongs to me after death. The government has


no right to my body. I am an organ donor and I don't know why people


are squeamish. Take what you need. It will rock or the burned away. And


this one on Twitter, everyone's body should be available after death


because it saves lives and that is more important than religious


beliefs. But this one, if you're not registered as a donor, then you


can't receive an organ yourself. Very interesting points. Yes, this


is a difficult area. How do we go about getting more people to have


the conversation? That is what we are all agreed on. By discussing it


here on national television, going into schools, having people at their


places of work talking about it. It is by us starting to push that first


domino, as it were, starting the conversation somewhere on a big


platform and hoping that people at home continue to have that


conversation in their own homes with their families. And that is that. I


think that is how we do it. You have had the last word in our debate but


not the last word on all of this because we hope the conversation


will continue. Thank you to you all. This week marked the 12th


anniversary of a day when 52 people were killed and more than 700


injured when four bombs went off One of the people on a Tube train


that was attacked was Sajda Mughal. That moment changed her life,


as Wendy Robbins discovered. Even today, 12 years on, when I get


onto the tube, it brings it all back to me. When I do, I relive the whole


experience. The 7th of July, 2005, began like any other working day for


London at Sajda Mughal. She went to her local tube station and headed


for her usual spot in the front carriage. It was a busy morning of


the platform was very busy. I got onto the tube somewhere in the


middle. If I had got into the first carriage, I would not be alive today


telling you my story. Just seconds after the train left King's Cross, a


huge explosion ripped through that front carriage. What do you remember


after the bomb went off? The train shook. Thick black smoke was filling


up the carriages. I had to take my blazer off to cover my face. People


started to bang on the doors and the windows, kicking at them. I thought


this was it. 7th of July, 2005, the day that I die. The tube train had


been targeted by suicide bomber Jermaine Lindsay. He was one of four


terrorists whose attacks killed 52 people and injured hundreds more


that day. What were your thoughts when you realised these bombings had


been carried out by Muslim men? That shocked me. I am a Muslim. I know


this is not what Islam teaches us in any way. It says in the Koran to


take one innocent life is as if you have taken the whole of humanity and


mankind. I knew from that point that these four individuals had been


brainwashed and the question was how could we have prevented this from


happening? Part of the answer, she believes, lies with Muslim mothers.


Sajda gave up her job in banking to teach a ground-breaking programme


which teaches women to spot early signs of radicalisation in their


families and tackles the dangers of online extremism. Ladies, what are


the types of signs that you think you would notice if maybe your child


or your relative was on this pathway of extremism? Today she is then


touring local mothers in Portsmouth, home to a reported eight people who


have joined jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq. These mothers have been


asked to be filmed anonymously. What brings you to the course today?


Portsmouth has suffered quite badly with extremism in the past. We don't


want another family to be affected. Through the programme we are


learning that it is subtle changes in children that mothers can spot


first of all. Mothers are the first point of contact. If they know what


is going on, they know what signs to look out for in their children. The


internet is playing a part in radicalising individuals.


Specifically young people. I developed the web guardians


programme for them. This raises awareness and highlighted and that


while the internet can be a good place, it is also a dangerous place.


We are talking about the signs to look out for if their loved one is


at risk. The kinds of conversations they can start having, how they can


take an active part in their lives. How do you have that conversation


with your child? What have you learned about that? To be open and


honest with them. To discuss things we see on the news. To ask them if


anything is troubling them, they have heard anything. The important


thing is to build that relationship an early age. So that children can


come to the mums and dads. Mothers are the change-makers. When you


educate and empower them, they protect their children. They are


able to nurture their children, they are able to prevent them from


becoming radicalised. That then means that we protect ourselves and


society from being affected by terrorist attacks. Sitting here at


King's Cross, reliving the memories, it is very hard. Knowing what I know


and what happened on that day, the 7th of July 2005, would I get back


onto that tube on the Piccadilly line? Yes. Because of the work that


I do and the difference it makes to prevent attacks and radicalisation.


Sajda Mughal and her work to stop radicalisation.


Now, school assembly is a familiar part of many children's lives.


It's also a time when mainstream schools in England and Wales


are required to have an act of worship, broadly Christian-based,


unless their parents choose that their children opt out.


But two high school pupils in Cardiff have launched a petition


calling on the Welsh Assembly to end compulsory collective


And one of them, 15-year-old Rhiannon Shipton, joins


us now with her dad, Martin.


Good morning. Rhiannon, why do you think it is not right to hold


prayers in school? Lots of us are atheists or from other religions so


I do not think it is fair we are forced into religious prayers when


we do not believe in what is being said? About what to others say in


school? Some agree with it because they have the same beliefs and they


think it is pointless to be reciting the Lord's Prayer, but the Christian


ones -- lots of them agree with us but some of them think we are


against Christian rights. Do you really feel forced? Can't you just


opt out and not do anything during prayers? I think it is wrong, the


fact that we have to do it. Sometimes the teachers keep you in


if you don't say it and they make you say it loudly enough until you


have left the room. Martin, be honest, did you force your daughter


to do this? No, she was coming home from school,


complaining about it several times. I know her friends did the same with


their parents. I said, don't just complain, do something. I told her


that the Welsh Assembly has a procedure where you can raise an


online petition and get a committee at the Assembly to look at it and it


went from bad. She went and saw the clerks of the committee, the online


petition was set up and it went to where it is now. I have teenagers,


my kids complain about a lot, I don't get them to do a petition. Are


you taking it too far? I don't think so, it is principal and comes


down to a matter of human rights and children's rights. I think it is


wrong in 2017 that we still expect children to save the Lord's Prayer


when they don't want to. Good to talk to you, Rhiannon and Martin.


The Welsh government says that the collective worship should be


sensitive to the beliefs and non-beliefs of different peoples and


they may opt out and schools must adhere to that.


We're all used to charities asking for donations.


But what happens when that becomes pestering?


Well, this week new rules have been introduced to clamp down


on charities making nuisance requests for money.


The Fundraising Preference Service will allow people to say they want


a specified charity to stop contacting them by phone,


And if they don't comply, the charities could face heavy fines.


I met the chairman of the regulator, Lord Grade, and asked him why


I think there has definitely been a backlash by the British public,


generally, to some bad cases. People are saying, yeah, we are fed up with


being pressurised. It puts at risk the incredible goodwill and


generosity of the British public. What is wrong with some of the new


ways that charities fundraising? There are laws about if you hold


somebody's data willingly, if you give your details to -- to somebody


they cannot pass that on to anybody they want, that is a basic rule,


that is a law of the land. Then there is the question of if you are


being bombarded, how do you stop it? You should have the right to be able


to say I do not want to hear from you guys. I want to hear from you,


but not you. We need to give the public the means to get control of


that, which is what we have just launched, the Fundraising Preference


Service. How exactly does that work? You can tell us online or on the


phone that you want to hear from A, B, C charity but not X, Y, Z. That


is registered and the charity is obliged not to contact you again. We


have a possibility, ultimately, of charities being fined up to ?25,000,


is that enough of a deterrent for the big charities making millions?


The power to give fines rests with the information commissioner's


office, if they deem a charity has breached the laws and the codes on


data sharing they are entitled to find them, it could be ?25,000, ?1


million, ?25. Could this lead to charities going of business? I think


the risk of doing nothing, in the long term, would be much more


damaging. We are a very giving nation and we have to nurture that


and cherish it. And keep the goodwill of the British public,


meaning charities ethically fundraising. If we go on unchecked


the way we work, I think there would have been a real public backlash.


Lord Grade, making sure charities toe the line.


Are violent prisoners being released too early?


That question has been raised after latest figures reveal that


between 2012 and 2016, offenders on probation were charged


with nearly 400 murders and around 2,300 violent and sexual offences.


So what is the balance between allowing criminals out


under supervision as part of their rehabilitation versus


Here to discuss that are Mark Johnson -


a former prisoner and now founder of the charity User Voice -


and Peter Cuthbertson, the director of the Centre for Crime


The re-offending rates we've heard about this week are pretty shocking.


Wouldn't we all be safer if we locked violent


And we did not release them early on licence? Basically, I think you have


a situation at the moment, I think those figures show you that we put


people in the system but do not do anything with them while they are in


there. That is why we have had historically high reconviction rates


overall. We have always had this thing. My point would be that it is


what we do the minute they go in. At the moment we have had Justice cut


by half, prison staffing numbers cut by half, privatisation, 70% of


probation services. There is no money to get involved in the real


point, rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is a good word,


surely that is the aim, to rehabilitate prisoners so they can


come out and not reoffend? It is very important and always worth


attempting, but the attack -- the offenders themselves choose to


commit crimes again and again. By the time the average person gets to


prison they have committed so many offences they are already hardened


criminals and turning them around is very difficult.


I agree with your question, putting them in for longer sentences work in


protecting the public and they have a lower reoffending rates. So they


choose to become criminals, or once they have become criminals they


cannot get back into society? Everyone chooses to commit crimes or


not. But people have different questions and follow different


routes -- different chances. Lets be realistic with what you can do with


hardened criminals. For every nice case of a life turnaround there are


thousands of victims of crime because we release people after


short sentences. Hardened criminals, people who have done really bad


stuff, there are victims and families affected. Are they beyond


repair? For me the whole issue is really emotive. Rather than


having... We have this political environment in which house to be


seen to be tough on crime. We have had five Justice ministers over this


term of Government, they tinker with the system and do not get to the


real point to say how do we change somebody's behaviour? We know where


the journey starts with offending, you have just said that, coming from


dysfunctional childhood. 70% of the people in prison at the moment have


drink and drug related and mental health issues, but we are just


locking them up. That is no consolation to the family of a


murder victim, relatives of a murder victim, would you look them in the


eye and tell them that, that we need to rehabilitate? Someone might have


committed an awful crime against them. What I would advocate is


educating people on what rehabilitation is. I do not think


prisons are behind four waltz, people get educated via the tabloids


and the tabloids are generated by this very emotive polarised view of


murderers and stuff like that. I have taken a lot of the public into


prison to see our work, etc, they never had the same perception coming


out as they did when they went in. When Eubank somebody up the 24 hours


a day, -- when you bang somebody up for 24 hours a day and let them out,


we miraculously expect them to rehabilitate. The system is designed


to mitigate risk. Prison governors, they are doing probably the most


dangerous job ever at the moment because of the staffing numbers etc,


they are there to contain, to contain a problem. Not to address


the true cause. If we want a vision of the future, looking at building


more prisons etc and locking people up through believing that they made


this moral decision to commit a crime and not look at the mitigating


circumstances, looked to America. One in 90 people in America are


locked up. For longer, yeah, but their reconviction rates are higher


than here. Looking at Norway, Denmark etc, they had a really smart


approach to crime. I will let you respond in a moment, Samanthi has a


special insight. I'm joined now by Leroy Skeet, who


was convicted of a violent crime. What were you in prison for? GBH


with intent. What was your sentence? Section two life sentence with a


six-year terror, I served 11 years. Life did not mean life, should it? I


think that is ridiculous. People should be given a second chance. We


live in a Christian society and it says everyone should be given a


chance. A second chance. What helps rehabilitate you? I realised I was


being used as a political football, once I rehabilitate me, only you can


rehabilitate yourself, nobody else can do it, you have to want it for


yourself. You don't believe the prison system has any responsibility


towards your rehabilitation? Yes, but with the cuts, what do you


expect them to do? Simple question, probably no simple answer, does


prison work? If you stick someone imprisoned the 24 hours a day and


treat them like an animal and you expect them to come out and behave


like a normal member of society, it is ridiculous. Treat somebody like


an animal, they will behave like an animal. I was brought up in the care


of the local authority from ten, beaten front-end, it made me more


vicious and bitter towards society. In order to give compassion you had


to receive it. Treat somebody like an animal, they will behave like


one, it is that simple. Google thank you, Leroy. You treat somebody like


an animal and they will come out like one, where is your compassion?


I don't think any prison treats people like an animal. Locked up the


23 hours a day? It is dangerous to say there is only a choice between


rehabilitation and putting someone imprisoned. Often the longer


sentences produce the lower reoffending rates, we need to look


at complementary rehabilitation. If there is one priority for prison, is


a punishment or rehabilitation? I would say protecting the public.


Should they be punished or is it rehabilitation? It is punishment for


the reason that they have often committed hundreds of offences a


year. Protect the public for as long as you can. We hear about violence


in prisons and the conditions in prison, are we creating more violent


offenders inside? It is really dangerous to imply that people are


going in a relatively innocent and coming at a much more violent.


People get other punishments and they have much higher reoffending


rates in many cases. Ten seconds, what would you like to see? More


rehabilitation, and some kind of jointed system that is physically


through the gate to help people. When somebody goes into prison there


will be an inquiry immediately into the reasons they are there, by


professions. And it never happens. I absolutely disagree with you, prison


conditions at the moment are dire. We have the highest death and


suicide rates in custody at records, an epidemic of spice use and legal


high use, it is pretty poor at the moment. Thank you both.


That's nearly all from us for this week.


Many thanks to all our guests and you at home


But why don't you join Samanthi for live chat online after the show?


Yes, I'll be talking to Charles Michael Duke,


who we heard from in our discussion on organ transplants and is waiting


Log on to facebook.com/bbcsundaymorninglive


In the meantime, from everyone here in the studio and the whole


Sunday Morning Live team, goodbye.


When I think of the world we inhabit, everyone will think,


Download Subtitles